Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Spoilers What Movie Are You Watching?
- Thread starter Huntn
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I saw "Underworld: Awakening". I guess the series is a bit of a guilty pleasure. They are totally impossible, but I very much enjoy them anyway, even as I point out things that can't happen.
I wonder if the Myth Busters will try shooting the bottom out of an elevator?
I wonder if the Myth Busters will try shooting the bottom out of an elevator?
Yesterday, Bonnie and Clyde with Beatty, Hackman and Faye Dunaway - breathtaking beauty by the way. Stylish piece, quite surprised there was actually a Barrow Gang, I was always under the impression they were all alone. And just finished The Day the Earth Stood Still, enjoyed it even more than expected, amazingly chilling score! Is the remake any good?
Haven't been back here for a few days, and so have had to catch up on a few pages. Agree re Heston, an atrociously bad actor. Actually, what you term (correctly) as his woodenness brings to mind Kevin Costner, who happens to be one of my pet hates, a man who brings wooden, clichéd, sterile, uninspiring performance to a fine art.....no matter what he appears in, he is the same person. Aaaargh.
Brendan Gleeson is an excellent actor, versatile, intelligent, articulate, and very talented. He played the part of Michael Collins, the Irish revolutionary hero, in a two part TV (made jointly by BBC and RTÉ, if I recall correctly, but must check that out) series which was made in the late 1980s, and based, scrupulously, on known sources from that time. My personal view was that he made a far better Collins than Liam Neeson, who starred in the eponymous movie.
I like your interpretation of Heston's "awkwardness" in the Welles' film. Call it good casting, knowing he would look awkward and using it for the sake of the film. Good call!!
I thought you would get a chuckle out of a comment that NathanMuir made on another thread. I had posted a brief comment about a movie which he mocked, He then commented that the discussions on this thread, especially between you, Scepticalscribe and I as discussions between "pseudo-intellectuals".
So take care, don't say anything too intelligent or insightful...it is unacceptable to NathanMuir!! Apparently, only trite, cliché and simple minded comments are acceptable.
Wonderful. I'm more than pleased that our discussions have given rise to such a response - others please feel free to join in, although I must say that I enjoy our online chats, and appreciate the input from twietee and Shrink .
whatever.
Watching Kuroneko right now. Could be something for you Shrink: black and white, horror and fairly old.
Always enjoying conversations with scepticalscribe and you, whether pseudo or not: Keep 'em coming!
Exactly, my thoughts, too.
Oh, and you did mention earlier that you hadn't much cared for "Lives of Others" (which I saw again last week) - why ever not?
Yes, enjoyed that one.
That is nice to know - I can look forward to it, then.
"Bonnie & Clyde" was an excellent movie, polished, stylish, clever and very well made.
I think you are thinking of Soylent Green.
I really liked him in Planet of the Apes, but I was a child then. I don't remember him being terrible in Ben Hur or The Ten Commandments. I would describe Charlton Heston as primarily an action actor of the 50-70s, kind of like Tom Cruise today, who has had his moments. I think my favorite is A Few Good Men and Risky Business. However, I admit Mr. Cruise tends to be a one note actor.
As far as Kevin Costner, I really liked him in No Way Out. Some roles are not emotionally demanding at all, but they are satisfying.
I think you are thinking of Soylent Green.
Image
I really liked him in Planet of the Apes, but I was a child then. I don't remember him being terrible in Ben Hur or The Ten Commandments. I would describe Charlton Heston as primarily an action actor of the 50-70s, kind of like Tom Cruise today, who has had his moments. I think my favorite is A Few Good Men and Risky Business. However, I admit Mr. Cruise tends to be a one note actor.
As far as Kevin Costner, I really liked him in No Way Out. Some roles are not emotionally demanding at all, but they are satisfying.
You are absolutely correct...it was "Soylent Green".
He wasn't terrible (I guess) in the biblical movies because he didn't have to act, just declaim and announce his lines in a god-like fashion. Unfortunately, he does that in all his movies, no matter the requirements of the part. I would have to disagree that his acting (!?) was a product of his time. There were many other film actors of the time who inhabited their characters, spoke their lines believably, and displayed a capacity to play a wide range of roles. I'm rushing at the moment so the only names that come immediately to mind are Brando (so sad what he became), Monte Clift, Sterling Hayden, Jean Hagen, Louis Calhern and others. For me, Heston was just a bad actor!
Having said all that, I respect your evaluations and thoughtful comments. Our disagreement is enjoyable fodder for discussion.
You are absolutely correct...it was "Soylent Green".
He wasn't terrible (I guess) in the biblical movies because he didn't have to act, just declaim and announce his lines in a god-like fashion. Unfortunately, he does that in all his movies, no matter the requirements of the part. I would have to disagree that his acting (!?) was a product of his time. There were many other film actors of the time who inhabited their characters, spoke their lines believably, and displayed a capacity to play a wide range of roles. I'm rushing at the moment so the only names that come immediately to mind are Brando (so sad what he became), Monte Clift, Sterling Hayden, Jean Hagen, Louis Calhern and others. For me, Heston was just a bad actor!
Having said all that, I respect your evaluations and thoughtful comments. Our disagreement is enjoyable fodder for discussion.
Our only disagreement which I would describe as mild, is how bad an actor Charlton Heston is, lol.
I see an entire class of mediocre actors who can play non-demanding emotional roles, then there are the physical actors, who are really good with physicality, then are are roles that just suit actors no matter how bad they are, leaving a small elite group of very talented actors. My favorite bad, but physical actor would have to be Ar-nold in movies I just happen to love: Terminator 2, Predator, and True Lies.
Last edited:
I kind of agree. The first Terminator is one of my alltime favorites! Tech noir at it's best. He was born for that particular role. Not so fond of the successor, though - kind of what happened with Alien after Cameron and MTV took over. Also a really strong vote for Sly Stallone and his first Rambo. Although I'll have to find a way to re-cut / re-edit the ending and exchange it with the alternate footage.
That'd be perfect then. One day...wonder if I can do that with iMovie, though.
I kind of agree. The first Terminator is one of my alltime favorites! Tech noir at it's best. He was born for that particular role. Not so fond of the successor, though - kind of what happened with Alien after Cameron and MTV took over. Also a really strong vote for Sly Stallone and his first Rambo. Although I'll have to find a way to re-cut / re-edit the ending and exchange it with the alternate footage.
Terminator- Thumbs Up, quite impressive.
Alien vs Aliens- I consider both great movies for different reasons. The first was haunted house suspense, the second gun-ho kick-ass action. After that, the Alien franchise turned to crap, although I consider Prometheus a turn in the right direction although, a somewhat dissatisfying movie. It's overall atmosphere is superb.
Rambo- Very entertaining for it's time. It was just on tv and not as good as I remembered it.
Our only disagreement which I would describe as mild, is how bad an actor Charlton Heston is, lol.
Image
I kind of agree. The first Terminator is one of my alltime favorites! Tech noir at it's best. He was born for that particular role. Not so fond of the successor, though - kind of what happened with Alien after Cameron and MTV took over. Also a really strong vote for Sly Stallone and his first Rambo. Although I'll have to find a way to re-cut / re-edit the ending and exchange it with the alternate footage.
I guess I want to make a picky semantic issue of calling someone an "actor". Arnold was terrific in "terminator"...but "acting"??!! To me, acting involve making me believe the actor is not reading lines, but rather is speaking spontaneously and inhabiting the character.
Ah, picky, picky, picky...semantic crap!
I liked "Terminator" and "Alien". I agree that the first "Alien" was a haunted house story, but the sequels were just weak...with flat, 2 dimensional, stereotypic characters. I felt "Alien" jumped the shark after the first edition, and certainly after the second sequel. In the same "physical" performer class, I like Dwayne Johnson. He can do all the physical stuff, and demonstrates a self-deprecating sense of humor...quite tongue in cheek.
I don't know Shrink, to me Schwarzenegger was the Terminator (the first one). Period. How do you call that, if you don't call it acting, as limited as the role may require 'acting skills' to be perfected? And, although I find the sequel and Predator quite entertaining, even if that's just one single film he did in his whole career where it's next to impossible to imagine s.o. else, I appreciate it. (And luckily, nobody is ever forced to watch the Kindergarten Cop).
Do you remember the car chase scene where he, after jumping through a wall of fire, stares out of the side-window with a shotgun but no eyebrows left? Pretty much the most menacing bad-ass I've seen on screen ever.
I agree with the concept that an actor can inhabit a character, shining in a particular role, which demands high presence and physicality, and still be overall a lousy actor by the standard measure.
They have been showing X2 on HBO a lot lately. I'd say none of the roles require a high degree of emotionality, but they have emotional moments (end of X2) and require presence, physicality and top notch- story telling supported by impressive visuals. Consequently X-Men 1 and 2 rank as among the best story driven, comic based adventures I've ever had the pleasure to watch. Bryan Cox as William Stryker was supurb! Story telling perfection which continued with the prequel Origins: Wolverine. (Danny Huston as Stryker in the Wolverine Origins movie was also damned good.) Even if anyone has not seen these movies, I'd suggest watching them in the order they were made. Wolverine's search for his past is compelling (at least for me). Bryan Singer the director of the first two was missed in the X-Men3. It illustrates the power of a director to bring a story and his vision to the screen vs just carrying the story forward. I was not really happy with X-Men3 and X-Men: First Class was a disappointment.
![x_men_two_ver2.jpg]()
They have been showing X2 on HBO a lot lately. I'd say none of the roles require a high degree of emotionality, but they have emotional moments (end of X2) and require presence, physicality and top notch- story telling supported by impressive visuals. Consequently X-Men 1 and 2 rank as among the best story driven, comic based adventures I've ever had the pleasure to watch. Bryan Cox as William Stryker was supurb! Story telling perfection which continued with the prequel Origins: Wolverine. (Danny Huston as Stryker in the Wolverine Origins movie was also damned good.) Even if anyone has not seen these movies, I'd suggest watching them in the order they were made. Wolverine's search for his past is compelling (at least for me).
Bryan Singer the director of the first two was missed in the X-Men3. It illustrates the power of a director to bring a story and his vision to the screen vs just carrying the story forward. I was not really happy with X-Men3 and X-Men: First Class was a disappointment.
Last edited:
First, I did enjoy "The Terminator". As far as the car chase scene, what you described was achieved by make-up, not acting. Was he menacing and frightening...yes. Was that a function of acting, or just great make up and stunt work...well...
See Spencer Tracy's "Dr. Jekyll..." where make up only played a small part in his menacing demeanor, or Burt Lancaster in "Sweet Smell Of Success" where he is incredibly menacing with acting (the scary smile, the cold eyes) not scary make up.
Armold can do Arnold...but little else. To me, that's not really acting, even though he may be very effective in certain roles where being Arnold is all that's called for.
You very well may be right, although I don't really see the point: the first Terminator was a 100% one dimensional role and it works perfectly with me, I think the film is perfect exactly as it is. To discuss whether or not he was 'acting' here or not...it seems not so overly important to me.
While I totally agree that with the second installment, he was almost the weakest part, since he is a one trick pony (*have to see Conan, could be nice camp) and had to do some 'real' acting (rather emotional scenes
D) funny meant one-liner, almost father figure like role, even some minimum character development, etc.). There, he does deliver very, very poorly imho - but it takes nothing away from the first one and his - you may call it presence then. But that's the very same thing, and we came from that I think, with Heston in Touch of Evil and why it might work for some there.
you may be right, although I don't really see the point: the first Terminator was a 100% one dimensional role and it works perfectly with me, I think the film is perfect exactly as it is. To discuss whether or not he was 'acting' here or not...hmmm....as I said seems not important to me. While I totally agree that the second he was almost the weakest part, since he is a one trick pony (have to see Conan, could be nice camp) and had to do some 'real' acting (rather emotional scenes
I'm totally with you that no one could have played "the Terminator" character better than Arnold. He was born to play the part, and was perfect. (Do see the first Conan...it's a hoot and worth seeing.)
Maybe I can make myself better understood regarding acting, and being a good actor, by comparing Cary Grant and Spencer Tracy...two actors of the same era. To me acting involves submerging oneself in a role, inhabiting it, and making the viewer forget that it's an actor plating a part and believe that the actor IS the character. And a good actor can do it in a number of different roles...range.
Cary Grant could play one part, and played it in (just about) every movie he made...he could play Cary Grant. Nobody could play Cary Grant better...even he once said "I wish I was Cary Grant". But he had no range, he could only play Cary grant, and you always were acutely aware it was Cary Grant.
Then there was Spencer Tracy. Tracy inhabited the roles his played, he became the characters, and could do it in a wide variety of roles. He WAS Manuel in "Captains Courageous", He WAS the politician in "The last Hurrah", he was Adam Bonner in "Adams Rib", he WAS McCready in "Bad Day AT Black Rock", and so on. He had tremendous range, and as has been said of him...you never caught him acting.
So, I think you are right that the the right person in the right role can be a perfect performance (Arnold in "Terminator, perhaps Heston in "Touch Of Evil"), but acting is more than just being able to just BE in one role.
Oooh, such a pedantic screed!!!
Yes, I agree. Can't bear/beer that anymore, Shrink. I am stopping now to play The Strawman for Huntn any longer, since I actually never called Schwarzenegger an actor in the first place.
I'm totally with you that no one could have played "the Terminator" character better than Arnold. He was born to play the part, and was perfect. (Do see the first Conan...it's a hoot and worth seeing.)
Maybe I can make myself better understood regarding acting, and being a good actor, by comparing Cary Grant and Spencer Tracy...two actors of the same era. To me acting involves submerging oneself in a role, inhabiting it, and making the viewer forget that it's an actor plating a part and believe that the actor IS the character. And a good actor can do it in a number of different roles...range.
Cary Grant could play one part, and played it in (just about) every movie he made...he could play Cary Grant. Nobody could play Cary Grant better...even he once said "I wish I was Cary Grant". But he had no range, he could only play Cary grant, and you always were acutely aware it was Cary Grant.
Then there was Spencer Tracy. Tracy inhabited the roles his played, he became the characters, and could do it in a wide variety of roles. He WAS Manuel in "Captains Courageous", He WAS the politician in "The last Hurrah", he was Adam Bonner in "Adams Rib", he WAS McCready in "Bad Day AT Black Rock", and so on. He had tremendous range, and as has been said of him...you never caught him acting.
So, I think you are right that the the right person in the right role can be a perfect performance (Arnold in "Terminator, perhaps Heston in "Touch Of Evil"), but acting is more than just being able to just BE in one role.
Oooh, such a pedantic screed!!!
Ooooooh. I agree completely with you distinction between acting per se, and just being yourself no matter what the part is named. Indeed, this is one of the reasons I cannot abide Kevin Costner or Tom Hanks (actually, now that I think of it, I don't much care for Tom Cruise either); they are themselves - in all of their self-regarding glory - any time you see them.
Whereas a good actor dissolves into, immerses themselves and effortlessly inhabits a role, and a really good actor is when you forget that an actor is actually playing this part and you simply accept that the role is real, and hardly notice the player who interprets it for you.
Last edited:
Ok. Back in the fight: exactly this is Arn. Schwarz. doing in the first movie, embodying his role 100%. Shrink extended the necessary requirements to be able doing so with many different roles and interpretations. And I tend to agree with him (although this is kind of a no-brainer).
See, I can be pedantic, too! [everybody left the thread]
*I'd also like to add Brad Pitt to your list
Last edited: